Bug 1152963 - Review Request: indi-eqmod - INDI driver for SkyWatcher
Summary: Review Request: indi-eqmod - INDI driver for SkyWatcher
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Florian "der-flo" Lehner
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-10-15 09:43 UTC by Christian Dersch
Modified: 2014-12-01 18:20 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2014-11-01 17:05:58 UTC
Type: ---
dev: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Christian Dersch 2014-10-15 09:43:00 UTC
Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-eqmod.spec
SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-eqmod-0.9.9-1.20141015svn1783.fc21.src.rpm

Description: INDI driver adding support for telescope mounts using the 
SkyWatcher protocol.

Fedora Account System Username: lupinix


I started to package some INDI drivers (enhancing the libindi package), so this is the first one :) Thank you for review in advance!


Comment 1 Christian Dersch 2014-10-15 12:21:57 UTC
Forgot to replace %make_install with make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}

Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-eqmod.spec
SRPM URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-eqmod-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc21.src.rpm

Comment 2 Florian "der-flo" Lehner 2014-10-19 14:25:34 UTC
Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
   ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7910621
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: indi-eqmod-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc22.x86_64.rpm
indi-eqmod.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indi_eqmod_telescope
indi-eqmod.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/indi-eqmod/INSTALL
indi-eqmod.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{revision}
indi-eqmod.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{driver}
indi-eqmod.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
indi-eqmod.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
indi-eqmod.src:16: W: macro-in-comment %{checkout}
indi-eqmod.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
indi-eqmod.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
indi-eqmod.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{checkout}
indi-eqmod.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
indi-eqmod.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
indi-eqmod.src:17: W: macro-in-comment %{checkout}
indi-eqmod.src:52: W: macro-in-%changelog %{checkout}
indi-eqmod.src:55: W: macro-in-%changelog %{checkout}
indi-eqmod.src:20: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 20)
indi-eqmod.src: W: invalid-url Source0: indi-eqmod-
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint indi-eqmod
indi-eqmod.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary indi_eqmod_telescope
indi-eqmod.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/indi-eqmod/INSTALL
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

indi-eqmod (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1152963
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby

===== Solution =====

Comment 3 Christian Dersch 2014-10-19 15:12:27 UTC
Thank you very much for reviewing this package!


Comment 4 Christian Dersch 2014-10-19 15:15:39 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: indi-eqmod
Short Description: INDI driver providing support for SkyWatcher Protocol
Upstream URL: http://indilib.org/
Owners: lupinix
Branches: f21

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-10-20 12:00:02 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2014-10-20 16:54:12 UTC
indi-eqmod-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2014-10-21 17:25:40 UTC
indi-eqmod-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

Comment 8 Christian Dersch 2014-11-01 17:05:58 UTC
indi-eqmod-0.9.9-3.20141015svn1783.fc21 has been pushed to stable now, forgot to add this bug to the update.

Comment 9 Christian Dersch 2014-12-01 14:29:10 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: indi-eqmod
New Branches: f20
Owners: lupinix

With new libindi release in f20 this package can be imported in f20 too :)

Comment 10 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-12-01 18:20:12 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.